Ok Bob, it's been a while since we last talked about this. But today I have some time and am in the mood. Of course consider yourself free to take your time and answer at your leisure. After all this will certainly be a long argument. (see below)
Bob Calco wrote: >> So let's keep it as simple as possible. The question is, do you state >> that reducing administration, health, and education whilst enlarging >> military and police is better for a republic than the opposite? >> Now you are an educated man Bob, so you can keep complicating the issue >> or give a straight and honest answer. Which will it be? >> > > The simple straight answer is that I believe a contractual system based on > private property rooted in the rule of law under a republican form of > government is the one least likely to fail at providing all of the above > services, in whatever proportions are necessary for the times, and most > likely to be accepting of and responsive to remedial changes. > So your simple straight answer does not answer what I asked for. You keep wriggling out of the issue like a worm. > Other modern forms of government based on command and control cannot, and > have not, succeeded on any appreciable scale, and in fact have been > unmitigated disasters, both fiscally and in terms of human rights > (communism/socialism are responsible for 200 million deaths in the 20th > century alone). > This is an obvious attempt at diverting the topic, you are looking for me to name modern states that have been doing this for decades and then the argument has gone off track. I will not answer this nor any other attempt of the same kind. > Your phrasing of the question I cannot accept because I don't presume to > know the correct "proportion" of this or that allocation of resources that > "optimizes" happiness. It is presumptuous to believe any one person can. > Moreover, it is dangerous. > Wriggling again. I do not ask for the "proportion", correct or incorrect.What I'm simply asking is if you believe in "reducing administration, health, and education whilst enlarging military and police is better", that's all. No need for "proportions" or exact formulas to optimize happiness. > I trust simple individuals acting in an adjudicated contractual system to > better their lot as they perceive it any time over committees of > professional mountebanks with the monopoly force behind them, to enforce > whatever lunatic schemes they devise in their power-hungry hearts. > But you just said you chose "a republican form of government", and I think you also meant "representative" form of govt. And in this kind of government laws are passed by committees influenced by lobbyists. You also just said that it would be presumptuous for a man to "know the correct proportion...", but the alternative to that is some kind of committee, at least in "a contractual system based on private property rooted in the rule of law". Because laws have to be passed and the alternatives we have to pass laws are committees or dictators. And we need laws, judges, and lawyers in order to "adjudicate" and decide in your "contractual system". Don't we? >> Let's rephrase. I see the involvement of the state in the welfare of >> it's citizens in two levels which often get thrown together. How much >> involvement there should be, and in which areas. >> > > There is also the question of constraints on that power, which usually > involve devices like bicameral legislatures, separation of powers, federal > vs. state vs. municipal power, and measures to reduce or at least mitigate > the debilitating effect of majority faction. As the last two presidencies > and their respective Congresses have demonstrated, we are breaking all of > those safeguards down here in America, and are ripe for tyranny. > Please, no political speeches, leave that for the campaign. You did not answer the question. >> Now, to treat >> socialists as a different species you should answer "there should be NO >> involvement of the state in the welfare of it's citizens" in which case >> the question would be "Then what IS the function of the state?". OTOH >> if >> you would describe an amount and manner of involvement I would ask >> "Then why do you consider socialists inherently different from you? You >> just disagree in the 'amount' of involvement.". >> > > It is not a mere disagreement by degree. They don't fall on that continuum > as you suppose that they do. Marxism is an ideology of power, based on a > view of man that reduces individuals to so many disposable ants, and cares > not a whit for the masses as a whole, either. It's an evil, cancerous > ideology that appeals to the basest instincts of envy and hate and revenge. > I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. Marx was a sociologist, and he described what he saw as contradictions and tensions in society. Marxism, at least theoretically, pretends to act based on that information (of course that is not what happened in the USSR, and anyway I don't like Marxism's methods to get there). It is capitalism that "appeals to the basest instincts of envy and hate and revenge" by making us all wish for things we cannot have and starve if we are not willing to do what somebody with cash wants. It is the basis of capitalism that man will attend only to his personal selfish interest. I talk about socialism and you answer to Marxism. This is why you Yanks are perceived worldwide as lacking any knowledge or finesse in politics. Please answer my question and please don't talk about Marxism in your answer, I'm talking about socialism. > >> I know I'm leaving a lot of gaps, this is not my native language, I'm >> at >> the office, and I don't have the time to write a 2000 words essay. >> Let's >> see if you can get what I mean and answer straight up. >> > > To summarize, I don't accept the framing of the question. I believe that a > free system is better than one in which the party in power has absolute > control to allocate resources beyond those explicitly given to government by > the people, consistent with private property and individual human rights. But what IS a "free" system. You use that word in so many contexts that it looses meaning. Any system will mess with your freedom (except probably anarchism), the question here is how much and in which areas. But you are not willing to come up front with an answer to that. > Socialists and communists have a far worse actual historical track record > creating (vs merely confiscating and consuming) wealth, providing for basic > services, and respecting the rights of individuals, than the system we have, > and are presently destroying because of the forces of deceit that have > overwhelmed our media and educational institutions. > You keep putting socialists and communists in the same bag. And even if we were talking about communists, it is not wise to think the communist regime in the USSR and a communist mayor of an Italian city are the same thing or respond in the same way. I've snipped a lot of paragraphs where you vomit your hate to president Obama. Now I remember this was the reason I desisted to answer this post. In the future, in this conversation I will just snip any such comments. But if you insist on transforming this conversation in a forum for your Obama hate then I willl desist and not answer the thread. > > I'd like to turn the question around on you and ask you how it's possible to > fix the horrors of deficit spending by quintupling the amount of deficit > spending? How does pumping taxpayer money to corrupt and dying institutions > help the average person? How is eviscerating our military capability while > massively exploding the debt to fund enormously complex bureaucracies better > for a republic, than increasing its ability to defend itself and decreasing > its unfunded liabilities? > You just said that "it is presumptuous to believe any one person can"... "know the correct "proportion"", even when I was asking a far simpler question. And yet you ask me to give you details and justify or deny an economic policy. This is plain stupid...... or you are pouring again your Obama hate. Please Bob. Are you *able* to hold a political conversation without resorting to campaign arguments? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
